Left vs Right done differently

I couldn’t explain to a leftie why I disagree with lefties. This was a Zoom call four months back. But I am grateful you are a friend. I know you are decent.

Ever since that conversation I have been working on a comeback. And, in doing so, the main challenge has been to not get lost.

The more you learn, the more you realize how little you know [1].

The literature has been far from straightforward. And ultimately, left vs right is fraught with paradoxes [2].

Not the time for a comeback.

-

I had argued that same-sex couples destroy the traditional family unit. Whereas you demanded that a traditional family unit includes same-sex couples. On the question of procreation, traditionally understood to be the main purpose of marriage, you argued that same-sex couples want children too.

‘Where is your error?’ I had asked myself.

I could follow your path, line by line, but the destination still felt wrong. That cultures from around the world oppose same-sex marriages was a talking point I didn’t wish to use. We stopped here that day and I started preparing.

But politics is thorny.

-

You will notice that my head has flattened from bouncing back and forth between the left and right perspectives. I have repurposed this essay 381 times. After months of wrestling, I have pieced together four ideas that hopefully won’t leave your mind once you read them.

There is no good reason to debate policies before principles.

This essay skips policies. Please allow me to approach from a distance. Let’s take a seat in a cafe and not the battlefield. Obviously, the left encompasses a wide range of views, and so does the right.

And since I don’t breathe politics, I have used the terms loosely - this is not a defining comparison of ideologies. And to those who transpose the spectrum as up-down, please chill.

-

My business is perspectives:

1. Our moral reasoning is post hoc [3]

That we reason after we already know which way we want to go. That one decides to support Democrats first, and then finds reasons why to. That one sides with Modi first, collects his grounds second.

Confirmation bias is easy. We then organise ourselves in at least two teams to play the sport of politics. My tribe versus yours. Whatever the policies.

The sorting hat begins the story but we write the rest of it.

In preparation, I read how the left and right don’t and won’t understand each other. If those are set in stone, then there is no way to explain to a leftie why I disagree with lefties. The essay ends here.

‘No compromise with murderers’ - trans person

‘No compromise with murderers’ - pro life person

However, I am optimistic that such is not the case. Therefore, I bring the post hoc reasoning first, a weakness that most of us share. Something to think about as you read on. And for later, when you watch John Oliver.

Note: I suspect those who have switched their political allegiance could have some insight into this human flaw. For some, the sorting hat’s decision is not final.

2. Cyclical history vs linear-unidirectional history

Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times.

Good times create weak men. Weak men create hard times. [4]

What is your concept of history? Do empires rise and fall? Does history repeat itself? Or does society move in a single-forward direction, which aspires to progress and evolve?

Consider different timeframes - one lifetime, since recorded history, and beyond (past and future lives as in Indic religions).

The cyclical model means that we are moving towards or away from a high point.

The rise and fall of the British empire

Make America great again?!

Returning to what the followers believe is pure Islam?!

Second coming, Mahdi, Kalki, Maitreya

A linear model aspires to reach the high point. Its subscribers place a particular importance in the development of human rights.

Those in support of the cyclical view cling to the traditions from their high point - such as hierarchy, order, customs. In contrast, the linear model pushes for change.

My position is that the left-right divide overlaps the linear-cyclical history divide respectively. An appreciation of such an ontological difference may make the other party appear less bonkers.

Learning is unusually easy. Unlearning is usually harder.

3. The question of tradition vs change/progress

   
   

One provides stability and continuity, a sense of belonging and identity. The other allows for growth and progress. One leads to stagnation or tyranny. The other leads to disruption or erosion of the social order. This paradox is ancient.

Circling back to whether same sex-couples form a traditional family unit, in some sense, is this not what we were debating about - whether to honor traditions or change them?

The distinction between left and right is often characterised by their attitude towards tradition vs change. Yes, yes, we need a balance. We know.

Allow me to share two positions from the expanse of the internet:

• That all traditions are rooted in the principles of survival

Consider three ends, seen as concentric layers - physical survival, social survival and cultural survival. First is a prerequisite for existence, second achieves cooperation in humans, and third gives identity and meaning to our lives. So traditions were developed, out of necessity, as means to these ends.

Now, it is difficult to verify such an origin story. But it is a powerful one.

Seen through this framework, traditions are elaborate systems at play. Therefore, a change is not as simple as replacing one for one. It can threaten, or perceive to threaten, the survival of any or all layers. It can lead to the unknown. A cascading collapse can arise. An alteration in the meaning of life.

To be sure, changes are often good, desirable and urgent. And for some advocates, a collapse is the goal - a complete overhaul of wealth and power distribution. But traditions, by design, will defend fiercely. Perhaps blindly.

Speaking of gender roles, I have heard of masculinity and the manly traditions, whether socially constructed or not. They guide me.

I am convinced that femininity is real too.

• That traditional values need not be at odds with human rights [5]

Some social, religious and cultural traditions violate or undermine human rights.

International human rights came 75 years ago. For everyone. Everywhere. Yet these rights can only be realized and practiced within specific, culturally-defined contexts.

In case of conflict, human rights must take priority over cultural rights. But this override is not so simple. Moral principles come from culture, and they differ across cultures. This challenges the universality of human rights. Further, such an override can create winners and losers, and the fear of losing is a great psychological driver to resist change.

A tradition’s cruelties offer no defense. The original text warns us against a static concept of tradition. It’s hopeful of change.

The only thing permanent is change.

While change happens anyways, the essence of a tradition is its permanence [6].

4. Do you lock the gates before you sleep?

Those responsible for the security - of people, of family, of community or property, tend to be pessimistic. Being cautious is their job description. To prevent security lapses, providers overprepare. Deterrence comes from the fear of consequences.

Stronger borders

Brutal policing

Massive and unproportional response to aggression

My argument is that anybody tasked with security, regardless of their personal political affiliation, will draw from their conservative senses. We all lock our gates when the focus is on security.

But the left’s focus on social justice and welfare leads to a trade-off, resulting in loose security policies. Whereas conservatives, who are also in-charge of the security of traditions, come up with more extreme policies.

The duality of human nature also comes into play - whether we are motivated by survival or love.

Conclusion

Perhaps there is no error. Only perspectives.

A comeback is irrelevant.

-

In summary, I am not immune to post hoc reasoning. But I have grown disillusioned with the view that every generation represents the pinnacle of progress, moving linearly forward.

Years ago, my compass pointed left. The term ‘post-truth’ became oxford dictionaries word of the year 2016. That American voters were not well-read. That Brexiters were not well-read. That Indian voters were not well-read. That fiction and emotion had replaced facts.

Today, we might be halfway through a circle since the left increasingly use fiction and emotion.

That conservatives might be naturally better at security policies is open for scrutiny.

Today what excites me is mastering the self. And traditions and wisdom of the past brings me closer to one highly desired fruit - clarity.

But the paradoxical human nature still shackles me, survival and self-centeredness pitted against our longing for love. Do same-sex couples form a traditional family unit? If I side with you the destination still feels wrong.

-

A colleague suggests that the circus masks the poor economy. That may be. But I am clear on one thing - I won’t take seriously those who demand universal healthcare or Just Stop Oil, then line up to attend concerts by music artists, which, as you would concur, is a purely capitalist pursuit.

Notes

Italics are thoughts.

[1] Credited to Socrates and Albert Einstein.

[2] Some modern political paradoxes that puzzles the mind: multiculturalism but also universal values, more individual liberty but also more collective responsibility, more freedom of choice but also larger government control for welfare, the gender-equality paradox. On the right, small government but also a strong state, free market but also protectionism, individual freedom but also social conservatism.

[3] From Johnathan Haidt’s work

[4] Credited to G. Michael Hopf

[5] The Trouble with Tradition, by Graeme Reid, HRW 2013

[6] A sentiment I first read in ‘Tradition – Constancy Is More Important than Change’ by Gergely Szilvay, Hungarian Conservative, 2021

Jiu-jitsu therapy

I’ll never forget the day when I heard my father telling someone on the phone that I do Kung-fu. Under any sensible criteria, nobody seeks a combat sport that requires you to keep T. rex arms. I didn’t.

But jiu-jitsu is found by accident.

We exchange pleasantries by asking how the knee is doing. Your friends are people who have choked you. But it’s undeniable that the time spent on the mats is full of laughs.

This essay won’t describe a Kimura. And persuasion is a different matter. Instead, this is an exploration on why I find jiu-jitsu therapeutic.

Let’s start with a question - Why are humans the dominant species?

Intelligence. Speech. Cooperation.

Now throw your hands in the mix. Literally. Human hands can push, pull, scoop and carry. We make strong grips, soft grips, precision grips. We manipulate objects. We use tools. We drive. We dress ourselves. Animals don’t.

The ability to use our hands (the palms, thumbs and fingers) in wildly different ways is a key factor that elevates humans to the top. To be clear, the mind is all powerful. But it is the skillful use of our hands that helps bring ideas and visions to life.

The hands become an extension of the mind - an extraordinary tool for exercising brain power. Books, paintings, buildings, machines, the internet, almost all important inventions have come by when the hands have kept up with the head. So my suspicion is simple, that brainy things have a touch of the hand.

-

Many combat athletes agree that jiu-jitsu feels more cerebral. I believe it is so because we have more ways of using the hands. More positions, more attacks, more escapes, more transitions, more details - in essence, we have more ways of fighting in jiu-jitsu.

Once the fight hits the ground, in many ways our legs or feet become two additional hands as we maneuver our body over the opponent. And if two hands makes you human, then doesn’t four make you superhuman?

When I roll on the mats, I am fully and truly in the moment. No dwelling in the past or daydreaming about the future. The task is clear and present. Plus, the endorphin high after? Now that’s pure therapy.

“To train in BJJ is to continually drown—or, rather, to be drowned, in sudden and ingenious ways—and to be taught, again and again, how to swim,” says Sam Harris in his 2012 essay titled The pleasures of drowning.

I am also obsessed by the fact that jiu-jitsu translates to gentle art.

***

We didn't start the fire

Part 1 - Questions

This Billy Joel song came out when he was 40. It consists of 119 references to major events around the world from 1949 to 1989. Now and then, I consider writing of subsequent events. After all, my year of birth picks up from where he left off.

I hope to include a good mix of events. Sadly, wars and armed conflicts are part of the mix.

Is it really an exaggeration to say that over half the world is fighting?

One source lists 42 ongoing wars and armed conflicts globally (World Population Review 2024). Another source monitors around 110 of them, of which 45 are in the Middle East and North Africa alone (Geneva Academy 2024). Some benefit from better media coverage than others.

This essay will not cover warfare. I won’t look into the geopolitical narratives of war, rebellion or intervention, nor the rationales of power and control. I feel there is something more elusive at play that sets the stage for conflict.

To be sure, the importance and benefits of culture cannot be overstated. There is no civilization without culture. It is from which all meanings come. If we were to abandon culture, we would go back to living in caves.

However, since I have become somewhat politically and culturally conscious, it seems to me that culture is inextricably linked to conflict. Differences in cultural values and beliefs seem to put people at odds with each other. There always seems to be 'them versus us,' not only in conversations among lawmakers, commentators and activists, but even around the dinner table.

My deliberations about conflict and culture have led me to a series of questions. Before I present them, I attempt to give a working definition for culture and briefly introduce Galtung’s triangle of violence.

Culture and Cultural Violence

[Disclaimer: Culture is a vast subject. It has many sub-fields of study, including those that critique it. There are many definitions of culture. And I try to keep it simple to begin this informal philosophical inquiry. It is also important to state that a strict academic treatment is beyond the scope of this essay.]

Culture is peculiar to humans. Its basic function is expansion and security of life. Early humans acted on instinct, but over time, they developed learned behaviors determined by survival. These evolved to patterns, handed down through generations, and finally to a system of things and events beyond senses alone (Britannica 2024).

To put it simply, culture is a shared way of life for a group of people. It includes common beliefs, values, behaviours and assumptions. It also includes a shared model of thinking, feeling, reacting and problem solving. There is also the unfamiliar culture problem, because individuals cannot accurately perceive, interpret, explain and predict the behaviour of people from different cultural backgrounds (PSU 2023).

Not only that all humans are cultural beings by virtue of being raised in them, but culture yields a massive influence on personality. Britannica quotes "Culture is stronger than life and stronger than death” highlighting practices of celibacy in some cultures and the ritualistic suicide by disembowelment (seppuku or hara-kiri).

I am changing gears here. Johan Galtung, sometimes referred to as the ‘father of peace studies,’ gave the triangle of violence which enumerated three types of violence: direct, structural and cultural (JSTOR 1969, 1990). Direct violence is physical violence or direct abuse. This violence is more visible and the perpetrators and victims are generally known.

Structural violence is that which is built into the social, economic or political structures. For example inequality between groups or discrimination against a particular group. This form of indirect violence is often less visible.

And finally, cultural violence, which refers to the existence of dominant norms so deeply rooted in a given culture that it makes direct violence and structural violence seem natural or acceptable. Cultural violence includes certain features or aspects of culture, and not entire cultures, that can be used to legitimize or justify violence. Culture has many domains: for example religion, ideology, language, art, economics and sciences. And cultural violence can be present in any or all of them. This type of violence is very difficult to identify.

The three types work together and reinforce each other. I encourage readers to think of examples for each type of violence from the past or present.

Before moving to the next section, some of the ideas are worth repeating: that culture has evolved into a system beyond senses alone; that culture has a powerful influence on humans; that there is the problem of unfamiliar culture; that cultural violence are those values and beliefs so integral to a given culture that makes violence acceptable; and that of the three types, cultural violence is the most elusive.

In the beginning I alluded to a possible link between cultures and conflicts. I argue that cultural violence is that link, and therefore, it is the primary theme of this essay.

Now the questions that eat me

Cultural diversity is a reality.

That there are cultural differences, is also a reality.

Do reasonably peaceful people exist in all cultures? Yes, with certainty. Unfortunately, the peaceful majority aren’t causing the conflicts.

Let’s nuance the question a bit - do violent people exist in peaceful cultures? The answer is not so straightforward. Do peaceful cultures exist? Is there even one that is a hundred percent peaceful? And if there are such cultures that are close to being peaceful, how big or relevant are they?

Why do cultures survive?

A culture must fight external influences to prevent its extinction. It survives by ensuring that its subscribers continue to grow. It survives by reproducing itself through generations. A culture survives by protecting itself.

It’s important to develop the last point - protection from whom? Other cultures? And will a culture survive if there are not those who would die to protect it? Will a culture survive if there are not those who would kill to protect it? And if such people do not exist, will a culture survive at all? And is the need to protect itself the gateway for cultural violence?

Is culture both a refuge (for insiders) and a tyranny (for the unwanted)?

A culture emphasizes its importance. A culture is designed to stay relevant. They compete with each other. If war is the continuation of politics, I wonder what is the continuation of culture. If two cultures are different, will it not always be “them versus us”? And as long as a culture exists, is cultural violence not a means to an end? Can culture exist without cultural violence?

On coexistence - can someone respect all cultures equally? Can someone respect all cultures and respect all of humanity at the same time? Can humanism trump all cultures? Can any culture respect all of humanity equally? Is it possible for someone to follow a particular religion while considering people from other faiths as its equal? To be clear, treating all cultures with equality is not the same as cultures treating each other as their equal.

In graduate school, once in a lecture, we played with the idea that ethnic origin is the source of all differences, that ethnicity precedes any culture. Now if the root cause for conflict is buried in ethnicity, then who the hell knows how they came to be. Needless to say that various cultures differ with respect to the beliefs concerning the origin of our species.

Cultural violence is deadlier than it seems. And I wonder, is this the fire we didn't start? As the song goes - It was always burning, since the world’s been turning. To fight the fire surely means to contain cultural violence.

To end with a small positive, I believe those who explore different cultures are the real changemakers. Those who don’t are part of the problem. Galtung discussed cultural peace, which aims to be the opposite of cultural violence, as an area for further research. However, I feel it is crucial to understand the nature of culture itself. And that can mean welcoming paradoxes in our lives. Examining culture may lead us to confront questions about human nature itself - on how we are all capable of love, as well as enmity. If you break down the iceberg of culture, you get more icebergs.

So who really did start the fire? Or are humans designed to never find out?

Part 2 of this essay will feature freshest, original answers from contributors of the Permeate magazine.

***